Traditionally, there are few things American cherish more than the freedom of religion as embodied by the First Amendment and their families. Normally, these ideals do not conflict all that much since these work together to allow the greatest good for the greatest number. However, as aberrant theologies gain in prominence, these social pillars have the potential of increasingly coming into conflict.

As a religious sect adhering to a legalistic view of salvation, the Jehovah Witnesses believe that it is a matter of eternal importance to avoid blood transfusions at all costs, even at the price of health and life itself. It is generally accepted that parents have the right to raise their children in compliance with the beliefs of the respective family’s faith. To adherents of the Watchtower Society, this means they ought to be able to refuse medical treatment for their children requiring blood transfusions. However, as the institution charged with overseeing the physical well being of those residing within its boundaries (especially for those unable to do so for themselves), the state might have other priorities as to whether or not an ailing child receives a blood transfusion.

What makes such an example so compelling is the variety of ethical issues of the most visceral variety involved. Foremost among these is the freedom of religion.

Here in the United States, citizens are allowed to believe what they want and pretty much permitted to live according to these principles so long as they do not infringe upon the well being and liberties of others from an activist standpoint. Relatedly, it is believed parents have the right to raise their children in accord with these principles and overall children are better off under the care of parents that genuinely love them than under detached bureaucracies. That said, the state has the obligation to protect the physical well-being of those that cannot do so for themselves. Unfortunately, this may often include small children unable to defend themselves against parents that do not have their priorities in order.

Fundamental to the American conception of human rights is the phrase contained in the Declaration of Independence of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Without life, the other two are essentially meaningless.

As such, in most instances life must take precedence, especially in cases where the individual for whom the decision is being made is unable to make an informed one on their own. If the Jehovah Witness child was a teenager or an intelligent adolescent that refused medical treatment with the consent of the parents, the state should mind its own business and refrain from interference. It is generally considered improper to force treatment upon someone that does not want it since is their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that is at stake. However, two year olds are unable to make such decisions on their own and it would not be right for parents on their own to deny liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a child whose life is in need of direct emergency medical intervention.

While the state has the imperative and obligation to protect the lives of its most innocent members, that does not mean its agents should eagerly rush in to break up families as is the mindset of many in so-called “child protective services” in a manner akin to Janet Reno bursting in with guns blazing into the Branch Davidian compound. Rather, the notion that one may lure more flies with sugar than vinegar may be a more appropriate strategy.

First, hospital officials should assure the parents that everything is being done to treat the child initially with procedures that do not necessarily involve a blood transfusion. Secondly, in discussions of this kind of case, Roe notes that in certain circumstances an appeal to Watchtower officials might be able to persuade them to permit the transfusion even though it is not in compliance with the sect’s normal policy (120).

Such an instance might also be better handled by the hospital chaplain or Christian acquaintances since it might make the parents even more defensive if confronted by hospital personnel or child protection bureaucrats that hand down edicts with all the compassion of the IRS or DMV. As fellow theists though of a considerably different persuasion, the chaplain or Christian friend could discuss the passages from which the prohibitions against blood transfusions are drawn and explain in a kind and understanding manner how they do not necessarily apply and how God forgives those that ask and that no deed other than the failure to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins is beyond redemption by His blood.

The bond between parent and child is strong. Under normal circumstances, a loving parent is not going to allow harm to come to that child without taking action.

However, in rare instances where the child is in danger of imminent loss of life and is not competent as to consent to their own medical treatment and parents forbid intervention on the part of physicians, authorities from the various spheres overseeing medical services may be required to use their assorted forms of influence to persuade the parents that it is in the best interests of the child to allow treatment. At first, this should be done in a friendly and conversational manner. However, if they do not relent, higher authorities such as the courts and social services may need to be consulted in a judicious manner that preserves the physical well being of the child as well as inflict minimal damage to the integrity of the parent/child relationship.

Technically, if Mohler is a Calvinist, on what grounds does Mohler condemn Phelps for making the task of proclaiming the Gospel more difficult if God has already predetermined what number accept Christ as Lord and Savior. In such a soteriology, Phelps can't detract or add a single soul to the ranks of the redeemed.

“Fred Phelps was hated for speaking the truth about the militant homosexual. The militant homosexual is no friend of God, and no friend of America. I'm not saying I agreed with Fred's methods, I'm just saying I agreed with Fred.”

Usually, Bachmann is more insightful than this.

So you should go around telling parents that their children died in car wrecks because your states wasn't tough enough on the sodomites?

Furthermore, it was doubtful that the Amish school children slaughtered by a deranged gunman that the Phelps cult insisted got what they deserved were preparing for a gay pride rally.

The problem with Fred Phelps was not his stance against homosexuality.

Where he went off the deep end was blaming everyone else for things over which they had no control.

And would Michelle Bachmann so eagerly insert her nose into the rectal cavity of this religious lunatic if her own personal tragedies were ridiculed and exploited for the sake of ecclesiastical showmanship?

Friday, March 21, 2014

A theologian remarked on Facebook that Roman Catholics are more dedicated overall to their respective belief system than most Protestants.

As evidence, the example was given of Catholics that attend church every day especially to receive the mass.

On of the strengths of Protestantism is its realization and contention that one does not require the assistance of a priest to commune with God if one does not so desire.

After all, the priesthood is of ALL believers and just not a professional class.

Thus, your access to God is as direct from your bed chamber as it is in the most magnificent cathedral.

It is only human limitations that impose such a distinction in these venues.

So aren't Protestants making a fuss that one ought to be in church daily to exhibit an acceptable level of devotion to God really insisting that going to church is not so much about worshiping God as it is about OTHERS seeing you supposedly worshiping God?

According to the March 19, 2014 post at the PCUSA.org Food & Faith blog, Brian McLaren participated in a demonstration at a Publix supermarket in Lakeland, Florida.

The purpose of the rally was to intimidate the chain store into joining the Fair Food Program.

That initiative is not the focus of these comments.

Unless that activist theologian has moved to that particular locality, an even more interesting observation is how did Brian McLaren get there?

It is quite a walk from Maryland to Florida.

Even a bicycle ride would be out of the question.

Interestingly, part of McLaren's shtick on the rubber chicken circuit is to denigrate modern conveniences and technology.

In one interview, McLaren denounced the four walled structure necessary to provide shelter as separating man from God's creation.

So apparently while you, mere pew filler, are to feel shamed for having a roof over your head and maybe a car in the driveway, McLaren is so important that the world economy will collapse if he doesn't get to play labor organizer in the mid winter Florida sun.

The updated Robocop film does a superb job bringing attention to the ethical implications of robot and drone warfare.

If one was required to show one's hands to the robots in order to be categorized as non-threatening, since the movie was already saltier than it needed to be in terms of profanity, someone should have given the droids the finger.

Samuel Jackson is amusing in his spoof of Bill O'Reilly.

The scene where the senator was kicked off the "Novak Element" was quite reminiscent of the Fox News pundit interrupting guests he doesn't agree with.

Despite the relevancy of the underlying ethical conflict, the film wasn't necessarily an improvement over the 1980's version in all respects.

The more mechanized voice of the title character in the original and Murphy having done to him whatever his corporate masters wanted without any notion of consent on the part of his family since he was "dead" in eyes of the law and thus without any rights was a more dramatic portrayal of the threats posed to fundamental assumptions of humanity by radical cybernetic life extension technologies allowed to get out of control.

Facebook plans to enact a policy that will block minors from seeing posts for gun sales.
If children are that young and impressionable to the point of being so easily traumatized, what are they doing on Facebook in the first place?
In a USA Today article covering the announcement, the chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said, “On the same site that people are sharing birthday parties and family reunions, there are photos of AK-47's.”

So what?

There are probably just as many photographs of teens getting drunk if one digs deep enough and accounts are notorious of errant spouses utilizing this revolutionary communications technology to abet adultery.

There are valid arguments made from both positions as to the propriety of gun sales facilitated over social networks.

But what is the big fuss over a gun picture?

Online, those guns are probably about as real as the bosoms of the scantily clad models attempting to entice you to click on links for a wide variety of products and services.

Perhaps the most appropriate advice is adapted from the moral libertines any time a parent or even a concerned citizen raises a reservation about the amount of exposed flesh or non-marital boudoir frolicking depicted in the contemporary media.